Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2022 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 390 - HC - Income TaxAddition u/s 43B - deduction of payment of electricity duty disallowed - the Assessee ‘paid’ the amount in dispute, it paid it only into an account from which the State Government could not withdraw the amount. - as argued the said sum is a crystallized liability and deposited in a ‘no lien’ account pursuant to the directions of the Hon’ble Orissa High Court - HELD THAT:- In the present case, while the Assessee may not have furnished a bank guarantee, its deposit of the disputed electricity duty amount in a no-lien/escrow account was only to ensure that during the pendency of the litigation the said disputed amount is not in fact paid directly to the State Government. Therefore, the net result is no different from the kind of payment made by the Assessee in the aforementioned two cases by furnishing bank guarantees in lieu of such disputed payment of duty. In all three instances, therefore, the requirement of Section 43 B of the Act is not satisfied. - Decided against assessee. Expenditure incurred on foreign travel of Directors of the Appellant disallowed - whether same has been undertaken wholly and exclusively for the business of Appellant Company? - HELD THAT:- While the names of the cities, the names of the Directors and the amount spent on each of them were specified there were no further details furnished to indicate that the expense was for purely business purposes. The AO was not, in the considered view of this Court, acting unreasonably in concluding that in the absence of better particulars to substantiate the claim that it was only for business purposes, it could not be wholly allowed. In the circumstances, disallowing 20% thereof cannot be held to be improper or legally impermissible. Since the claim of the Assessee was that the expenses of ‘wholly and exclusively’ for the business of the Assessee, and for no other purpose, it was incumbent on the Assessee to discharge the burden of substantiating that fact. In the considered view of the Court, the Assessee cannot be said to have discharged said burden satisfactorily.- Decided against assessee.
|